<quoted text>"Switzerland is the only country with fewer gun murders than the US per capita."I'll give you that, but you're still comparing apples to oranges. The total population of the US is what? 330+ million? And Switzerland? Just under 8 million?Come on man...look at the total death by firearm statistic. It paints an entirely different picture.

Actually, i can't think of a comparible way to judge these murder stats, can you?....Other than per 100,000....or 10,000....or 1,000,000......there is no other way....

<quoted text>Your data doesn't show the whole picture. Immigrants make up a large percentage of serious crimes in Switzerland, not the Swiss. Switzerland has an extremely high rate of deportations - including murder convictions. If you want to look at "blacks," look at Switzerland - immigrants from Angola, Nigeria, Algeria, CÃ´te d'Ivoire and the Dominican Republic make up almost 25 per capita on total crime rates.

The difference is that Americans, not immigrants, make up the largest percentage of firearm violence in the US.

<quoted text>Tomato, tomatoe - irregardless of the "political" meaning - they're killers - and not to be confused with hunting or sporting firearms.The 2nd Ammendment should be a priviledge, not a right - maybe then we'd have just a little more respect for each other than just for ourselves.

It means when Obama orders them to round up the "trouble makers" it will be much easier.Government officials, including politicians, federal agencies, and the military are exempt under the proposed ban.

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote: <quoted text>The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.And *any* weapon is an "assault" weapon by its very nature. You can stab someone with an assault screwdriver, or bludgeon them with an assault tire iron.But today's technical definition is any rifle that is capable of selective fire; meaning, with a flick of the switch you can go from semiautomatic to full automatic. The "assault" rifles available to the public do not fit this criteria--they are strictly semiautomatic.

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>Tomato, tomatoe - irregardless of the "political" meaning - they're killers - and not to be confused with hunting or sporting firearms.

There is no such word as "irregardless." "Regardless" means without regard.

The only "political" meaning is the liberals' deliberate obfuscation of terms; I go by the technical definition of these weapons. You obviously know nothing of firearms, their history, their function.

The right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting, it's about defense of a free state, and self-defense. I can see why you, as a liberal and a socialist, are opposed to that.

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>The 2nd Ammendment should be a priviledge, not a right - maybe then we'd have just a little more respect for each other than just for ourselves.

Well, it is a right--deal with it. An armed society is a polite society; deal with that. You speak of respect for each other; yet you have no respect for my right to defend myself.

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote: <quoted text>We already have over 20,000 gun control laws. How many more do you want?Here's a wild & wacky idea; how about *criminal* control? Or do liberals see that an an infringement on criminal rights?

tallyho wrote:

<quoted text>read and think ...... each state , 50 of them ,have their own gun code.......... I'm thinking a uniform code like the age to drink .....

Their is no uniform code, like the age to drink. In some states it's nineteen, but in most it's twenty-one. It varies state by state.

The "uniform" gun law I believe in is the Second Amendment. It's worked for over 235 years; why change it?

tallyho wrote:

<quoted text>by gun control can I possible mean who, can get a gunthat is possible yes

We already have over 20,000 gun control laws. We need more criminal control.

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote: Dr-Sniper wrote:<quoted text>Thanks for the recap. You still have not defined "Assault Rifle".

milwaukee69 wrote:

<quoted text>The first assault rifleThe StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44, literally "storm [or assault] rifle (model of 1944") was an assault rifle developed in Nazi Germany during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered by many historians to be the first modern assault rifle. It is also known under the designations MP 43 and MP 44 (Maschinenpistole 43, Maschinenpistole 44 respectively), which denote earlier development versions of the same weapon with some differences like a different butt end, muzzle nut, shape of the front sight base or with an unstepped barrel, all only visible with close inspection.

And you *still* have not defined "assault rifle." Have you explained how the Sturmgewehr 44 functions? No.

According to the BATF and the Defense Department (and my dad, who is a retired Marine): assault rifles are those that are capable of selective fire. Do you know what "selective fire" is? Full auto and semi-auto, determined by the flick of a switch. Fully automatic weapons have been banned from private ownership since the 1930s. In order to possess one, one must fist obtain a FFL--a Federal Firearms Licence.

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote: <quoted text>The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.And *any* weapon is an "assault" weapon by its very nature. You can stab someone with an assault screwdriver, or bludgeon them with an assault tire iron.But today's technical definition is any rifle that is capable of selective fire; meaning, with a flick of the switch you can go from semiautomatic to full automatic. The "assault" rifles available to the public do not fit this criteria--they are strictly semiautomatic.

tallyho wrote:

<quoted text>in a way it does / as well as home defense / national defensethe right to arms was copied after the articles of the Mag na Carta of 1292???.... the King of England wanted to disarm his realm.... hunting was a way of life... but John wanted all to himself ....Besides I watched Robin Hoodps: a tyrannical ruler lead to rebel against a tyrannical government , because England was ruled by who could take power Saxons/Normans Tudor-Stewart etc etc

Show us all where it says "hunting" in the Second Amendment. I can show you where it says "being necessary for the security of a free state."

<quoted text>If that is accurate, the fully automatic part is already heavily banned, that special license is extremely difficult to attain....i think it's gonna have to cover semi-automatic in addition.....

Then you should not be allowed to own a firearm. I should, but you should not.

<quoted text>Excellent point!!!Had the gunman in the Sandy Hook massacre not shot himself, just think of the additional carnage that would've happened!!!A perfect example of how guns save lives, huh?8-|

Armed citizens prevent crimes more than two million times per year. If you don't like guns, don't own one.

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:<quoted text>We already have over 20,000 gun control laws. How many more do you want?Here's a wild & wacky idea; how about *criminal* control? Or do liberals see that an an infringement on criminal rights?<quoted text>Their is no uniform code, like the age to drink. In some states it's nineteen, but in most it's twenty-one. It varies state by state.The "uniform" gun law I believe in is the Second Amendment. It's worked for over 235 years; why change it?<quoted text>We already have over 20,000 gun control laws. We need more criminal control.

21 in all states including military bases ... the only exceptions are , you are with your parents , under 21 you can purchase it

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.